# 2019-175 Releases, Release, Remedial measures

Case summary

F&R Date: 2020-08-26

The grievor argued that his request for a voluntary release from the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) was not administered in accordance with the applicable regulation and policy direction. More specifically, he argued that the release date determined by the Director Military Careers (D Mil C) 5 was not sufficient to facilitate his transition to a civilian employment. As redress, he asked that the date of his release be extended, or that he be permitted to transfer to another occupation, so that he could continue to serve his country and provide for his family.

The Initial Authority, the Director General Military Careers, denied the grievance, finding that the decision to release the grievor was taken pursuant to paragraph 41 of Annex A to the Canadian Forces Administrative Orders 15-2, and was policy-compliant.

The Committee found that the grievor had requested his release rather than accept the assigned posting, and that, in accordance with the D Mil C Standard Operating Procedure 009 policy, the grievor would normally have been released on his posting message change of strength date, which would have been earlier than the release date he grieved. The Committee noted that the D Mil C 5 decision authorized additional time in order to allow the CAF authorities 30 days to complete the necessary release processing. The Committee found that this decision was compliant with the applicable CAF policy and concluded that the grievor's request for a voluntary release from the CAF was administered in accordance with the applicable regulation and policy direction.

The Committee recommended that redress not be granted.

FA decision summary

The Chief of Defence Staff, acting as Final Authority (FA), stated that while the Committee's analysis had been thorough, it did not have access to crucial information, namely a Directorate of Special Examinations and Inquiries (DSEI) report. After the grievor complained in 2016, DSEI investigated and found that the grievor's Chain of Command (CoC) had attempted to dismiss a harassment complaint he submitted and had conducted reprisals and tried to prevent him from submitting further harassment complaints and grievances. As a result, the FA found that the grievor had been aggrieved. He apologized and cancelled the contested initial counselling and recorded warning as well as a personal evaluation report. He noted that DSEI had not commented on the validity of the original harassment complaint but he described the CoC's conduct as harassing. However, the FA found that the grievor's release had been administered in accordance with policy.